Talk:1st Armored Division Sustainment Brigade/GA

GA Review

While this is a "good" article, it does not meet the necessary benchmark for a "Good Article".

Although involved in Vietnam (11 decorations in 13 campaigns?), there is ultimately little to no detail about its role in the war, what battles it fought, who led it, etc. Just a table..
Missing discussion of individual notable soldiers or commander in the group, if that would apply. (Admittedly unsure)
Brigade commanders in photo are not identified (despite nametags), and "a project" is unnecessarily vague.
Four paragraphs discuss the remobilization of the Army, not specific to actions of this brigade. Outside of that discussion, it is mostly just IraqWar-cruft.

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a GA reviewer myself, I find these reasonings by themselves somewhat shaky for automatically failing the GA. These things can be fixed with little effort, and the most prudent procedure would have been to put the article on "Hold" to prevent the wasting of time that it will be to re-quee them. I will fix them and renominate -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 23:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First GA Issues

For the next revewer, so it doesn't look like I just ignored the above review:

Although involved in Vietnam (11 decorations in 13 campaigns?), there is ultimately little to no detail about its role in the war, what battles it fought, who led it, etc. Just a table..
- ~~The one valid issue that I can fix.~~
  - Not even this one valid point is necessary. The brigade was a support unit at the time, part of the 1st cav. Details of what it did in vietnam belong on the 1st cav page, as this unit was part of that one at the time. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 19:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Missing discussion of individual notable soldiers or commander in the group, if that would apply. (Admittedly unsure)
- This is not a requirement for a GA, and, as the unit first officially formed in 2005, any "notable soldiers" before that would need to be mentioned in the 1st Cavalry Division article. There have been no soldiers since then who have gone on to achieve notability enough to have articles on wikipedia.
Brigade commanders in photo are not identified (despite nametags), and "a project" is unnecessarily vague.
- Additional information about the image is irrelavent to this article, unless the commanders or project by themselves are notable. Thus, it is only important to describe the image as it relates to the article.
Four paragraphs discuss the remobilization of the Army, not specific to actions of this brigade. Outside of that discussion, it is mostly just IraqWar-cruft.
- As this article is about a support unit, it should not be expected to be "exciting;" the article includes information about what jobs the brigade did in Iraq; these really were not subject to much change.

-Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA-Failed

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to fail this article. For one, the large amount of Red links seriously takes attention away from the rest of the article. The only pictures there are are the patches/logo of the Brigade. The article is also quite short. Fix these problems and renominate. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red links are a reason to put a GA on hold, not to fail it. I don't know if you looked at the article at all, but it is filled with images. And in terms of length, the article reasonably covers the topic in my opinion, so what exactly needs to be expanded? The unit is brand new, and its previous information belongs on the page of the unit it split from, as I stated above. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 23:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]